Talk:Michelle Malkin/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Michelle Malkin (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 > 3 >>

Contents

Links removed

I see someone earlier today vandalized my edit. Please don't do that again. I think the list of anti-Malkin links is long enough, and I have removed two links. This "Malkin watch" page is not "watching" anything, it's more like a juvenile, bonehead attack page. Take a brief look at it; there is no kind of structured, intelligent analysis or criticism there, only angry, hatefull Malkin-bashing, and it is definitely not an environment for countercriticism. Wikipedia doesn't need to encourage people to visit such sites, they can find them themselves. The "ghostwrite" page is plain trash, not worthy being refered to by en encyclopedia. Medico80 18:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Those links have been kept in the list through general consensus for months (years?) and are indicative of intellectually honest criticism of Malkin. There have been links in the past to awful pages that accuse her of bleaching her skin or prostitution, etc. - those links clearly DON'T belong and have also been kept out through consensus. --AStanhope 20:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
A frequent gag at Malkin-watch is video captions showing Malkin with a face expression looking very silly on a still photo. On the current frontpage is a posting commenting her skin color. Intellectually honest or not: the list of anti links was - and still is - TOO LONG. Article on president Bush doesn't contain links to all possible anti-Bush sites either. Cut it down. Medico80 22:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Then why not let our readers visit that site and decide for themselves?
Many "lefty" bloggers and their commentators hate Malkin with great passion, and a fair article on her should reflect that. On the other hand, the description of the link to "liberalavenger.com" is not completely accurate.
Cheers, CWC(talk) 03:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Now there is a posting calling her "chink". Wow, that's pretty funny. Medico80 14:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I just googled "site:malkinwatch.blogsome.com chink" and got nothing. Do you have a URL and/or a screenshot of that post?
Here http://malkinwatch.blogsome.com/2006/07/19/the-vent-derision-thread/#comments I should be fair now: the writer of that comment kindly explains why it is okay for him to speak racist slander. Enjoy the new logo with Malkin in nazi uniform. Boy that's funny - stil "intellectually honest" I guess... Medico80 08:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(Unindenting.) Thanks for the URL. (Hey, you're better than Google!) More seriously, it is astonishing to see a racist epithet which denotes Chinese people applied to someone of Filipino ancestry. But I guess all Asians look alike to some people!

And, yes, that logo is extraordinarily peurile. I would think that the logo alone would instantly discredit that site in the mind of any decent person, but maybe I'm being too optimistic again.

I just read the current main page at Malkin-watch. It has jumped the shark, along with several whales and a kraken or two. We should either delete that link, or (my preference) changes our description of it. Here's my first draft of the new text: "a blog devoted to infantile ad-hominen attacks on Malkin".

Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:167.24.104.150 has now deleted the link to malkin-watch. Cheers, CWC(talk) 20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Oki doki. Glad we got that straightened out ;-) I think the remaining links fully shows the diversity of opinions there may be on a personality like M.M. I regret my earlier statement about the article on liberalavanger.com, but I'm just wondering how someone can make such bold statement, that Malkin is not the author of the blog. I mean, if someone is falsifying his/her identity, doesn't it have legal consequenses..?Medico80 22:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove Weigel attack?

We currently have nearly 100 words about David Weigel's attempt to link Malkin to the suicide of Denice Denton. I suggest that this minor blog-scrap merits exactly 0 words in this article. What do other people think? Cheers, CWC(talk) 09:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've WP:BOLDly deleted that text. Here it is:
After Denice Denton, the chancellor of UC Santa Cruz, committed suicide[1] on June 24, 2006 following months of criticism for costing the university huge sums of money for (among other things) her de facto spouse and months of demonstrations against her by left-wing students, a contrarian Libertarian, David Wiegel, criticized Malkin for her failure to acknowledge that she had once accused Denton of "sedition" and published[2] the address and phone number of Denton's office, which Wiegel connected to Denton's suicide with no mention of any of Denton's other problems. [3] [4] [5]
Anyone who wants this put back should convert the links to <ref> format first! ;-)
Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Removed unsupported Claims by SAW and Malkin

First, I find no support anywhere that states SAW "published the press release with the phone numbers on their own website." It's true that the press releases were available from other sites, but where's the evidence that it was on their site? SAW's "anti-semetic calls" claim has been removed for this reason. Same standard should apply here. Also, the Sentinel Article by Roger Sideman specifically states that the students contacted Malkin to remove the numbers. That's the evidence and it's been provided. I find the text uses the word "claimed" to try to cast doubt on these facts, which are well sourced. If this is the standard, nearly every positive sentence from all of Wikipedia should change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riven turnbull (talk • contribs)

The next few paragraphs are a longish comment from me, in normal type, and interspersed responses from user Riven turnbull (talk · contribs), which I've put into italics. CWC(talk) 05:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
SAW did publish the complete press release (ie., with the contact details for their "Ad-hoc Press Team") on their website. It's still there. I just downloaded it. (I wonder how long it will stay there.)
What on earth are you talking about? I had checked it as well (saw.revolt.org), does SAW have another site I don't know about or something? I seriously object to your willfull misrepresentation of the situation. First, you say, you "downloaded them." What do you have to download? It's a website! The Press Release in question is here. You must be talking about the previous press release, where one person's phone number is listed in a PDF file, and another two emails listed in the same PDF file. But none of those people are the 3 people that Malking outed on her site, something your own "carefully worded" message above avoids. It should be easy enough for anyone to verify that they were there with archive.org or other mechanisms. If that's your claim, back it up, show some facts. Otherwise, there is no proof at all, as I said. Riven turnbull 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
That Sentinel article does not state "that the students contacted Malkin to remove the [details]". It says "When students called Malkin to request she remove the student information, Malkin reposted the names and numbers several more times." Even if the "when students called" bit is true (the "several more times" bit is false), there is nothing here saying that the students whose details Malkin posted ever contacted Malkin. Now read what Malkin wrote:
Oh, and for the record--not that the facts matter to the unhinged--not one of the three SAW students whose contact information is still publicly accessible across several websites has e-mailed me [*or phoned me or contacted me in any other way*] as of 12:30am EDT 4/18 [*as of 10:00am EDT*] to request that I remove anything.
How exactly do you know that the "several more times" bit is false? Riven turnbull 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Note her careful wording here.
Yes, OK. So she claims none of the actual 3 people contacted her. This is indeed "careful wording" so she can avoid saying other students contacted her. We should at least mention the FACT that "students" did contacted her as the NEWS STORY reports. Riven turnbull 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Having followed this incident fairly closely, I do not recall SAW ever claiming to have received anti-semitic abuse. Does anyone have a link for such a claim? I doubt very much that Malkin's followers would be anti-semitic.
I used "claim" when summarizing Malkin's posts, so I used "claim" for summarizing SAW's statements as well. Interestingly, the claims and counter-claims could well all be true! How often does that happen?
Cheers, CWC(talk) 02:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, when something is published in a source like a newspaper, we generally do not put "claimed" before it, otherwise all facts should be preceeded "claimed". You can change it to the "Sentinel Reported" if you want. Malkin's blog is her own words, so "claimed" is correct. There is a presumption that newspapers would not just make up facts and unless you can show otherwise, what is reported in the Sentinel is enough to remove the word "claimed" from the whole "who contacted who" subplot. Please don't be abusive. Riven turnbull 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My responses to Riven's comments of 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC) follow, each preceded by an excerpt from the comment by Riven to which it applies.
Riven has replied separately to each of my responses (09:18 UTC), and now I've responded to him. I've talken the liberty of adding numbers and putting Riven's replies into italics. CWC(talk) 11:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) What on earth are you talking about? [...]

I thought what I wrote was fairly clear, but let me try again. I downloaded the Press Release from saw.revolt.org yesterday, and got a version that contains the phone numbers and email addresses of the 3 students. That is proof that SAW posted the complete press release, despite all the claims to the contrary.
Riven, you probably should retract that "willful misrepresentation" bit. For one thing, it's a violation of Wikipedia rules.
I will retract and fully apologize if you're indeed telling the truth, or give me a reasonable explanation that you made a mistake. Now please try to follow me here: I'm looking at the website. There are TWO relevant entries near the bottom, both are press releases. One is a press release available in multiple formats, that is time-stamped at 8:30AM, April 11. That's NOT the press release that Malkin is talking about. There are names on this press release, but not the same names that Malkin outed. This entry is entirely irrelevant, but I suspect you are confusing it with the real one which was posted at 1:37PM April 11. THAT's the one that Malin is talking about and that one has no names anywhere. If you can show me (and everybody else) where these names are on the site, it would clear everything up, but you have posted no links. If the press release that you "downloaded" is not the same one Malkin is talking about, than please accept that I am correct and there's no evidence of these names on SAW's site, other than what Malkin "claims." Riven turnbull 09:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
See http://saw.revolt.org/node/49 and go to the "PDF" or "DOC" links for the April 7 press release. SAW edited the HTML version, but forgot to fix up the .doc and .pdf versions. CWC(talk) 11:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Chris, seriously, I'm at my witts end right now. I'm now repeating the same facts 3 times. You have not only failed to read my commentary, but also the press releases themselves. This link that you just posted is not the press release that Malkin published on her site. Look at Malkin's own screenshot http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004999.htm. The headline of this press release (the one we care about) is "Students Kick Military Recruiters Off Santa Cruz" stamped 1:37PM. The headline for the one you just linked to is "SAW to protest Military Recruiters on April 11." The one you linked to is a pre-action press release stamped 8:31AM. Malkin was talking about this press release which is still on SAW's website, but does not contain the names that Malkin outed: http://saw.revolt.org/node/50 dated 1:37PM Look at it, it matches Malkin's screenshot. This press release is the one that was distributed with the three names + three phone numbers that Malkin outed. The one you just link to in PDF and WORD forms has three other names and only one phone number. These are not the same names. None are the ones that Malkin outed are on your press release, since it's not the right press release. This means that you have no proof that the three names were on the website. At this point, I'm not going to repeat this again. It's here for everyone to see. I trust you to do the right thing restore my changes. Either provide some proof that these names were on the site, or take off that claim. It's not an unreasonable request and if you don't do it after three explanations, I'm left with no choice but to conclude that you're being abusive and try to escalate this issue with wikipedia. Now, I'm not sure about what aveneues there are here for that, but I will research it and do whatever it takes. Riven turnbull 19:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Newsflash: I just checked, and the press release is still there.
Read above please. Riven turnbull 09:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(2) How exactly do you know that the "several more times" bit is false?

Because I read everything Malkin posted on her blog during the relevant time. IIRC, she posted the details exactly once more, as a screenshot from the Sydney Indymedia site.
So your source is your personal recollection? What part of "unsupported" does that contradict? Second, even if the screenshot is from Sydney Indymedia, how does that show that it was published on SAW's site? That's the question here, and there is still no proof for it. Riven turnbull 09:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, being as how Malkin's blog is a blog, all the posts are still there. Plus I saved copies of all her relevant posts (I don't think I missed any), and read them yesterday.
What? I'm supposed to take your word for it that she hasn't changed anything, yet you basically take it as a given (with no evidence) that SAW did change things? SAW is also a blog. Look at it for yourself. This is Malkin's word against that of Santa Cruz Sentinel and this needs to be reflected in the entry. Riven turnbull 19:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Was it published at saw.revolt.org? Well, yes. How do we know? It's still there. CWC(talk) 11:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The names are not there, you are mistaken. Just read the damn text. Riven turnbull 19:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(3) Yes, OK. [...] We should at least mention the FACT that "students" did contacted her as the NEWS STORY reports. [...]

Well, Malkin has never denied that SAW contacted her, or that their request to remove the details was polite, so we might as well remove the "claim"s. (Clearly the politeness, if any, was too late: "SAW has removed the contact information from its press release and is now lying about the fact that it made the info publicly available on the Internet. I am leaving it up." See the first update to this post.) I'll de-weasel-word that sentence.
Fine. All I'm saying is that what Malkin says or what SAW says are"claim"s and what is written in the Santa Cruz Sentinel is not a "claim." As far as apologies being too late? That's another unsupported assumption on a fact that doesn't even need to be in this entry. Riven turnbull 09:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, the apologies-too-late thing is also WP:OR or very close to it, and must not go in the article. CWC(talk) 11:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(4) Please don't be abusive.

I don't see anywhere I've been abusive in this discussion. But I would like Riven to stop calling me a liar.
Considering you just called me a racist, I think that makes us even. I have offered to do a full apology and retraction as soon as you actually support what you're saying with facts.
I did not call you a racist. I asked whether you are one, because we have had Racist Right people editing their POV into this article before. I am very glad you're not one of them. (I bet you're glad too!) CWC(talk) 11:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, as I write, every single one of Riven's contributions is to this article or it's talk page — including the one where he removed the information that the people who removed Malkin's address etc "includ[ed] at least one White Power activist". Hmm. Is Riven a left-winger, or from the Racist Right?
Please... don't play games. I said several times now that I erased stuff that had no support. You presented no support for that the email was from a "white power" activist. You have no idea who wrote the email. SAW also has many nasty emails, does that mean we can post claims made in those emails as fact? For example that "At least one of the emailers to SAW was retired military"? No, that's absurd. People can make up anything in hate-mail, and frankly this discussion does not belong in an encylopedia. If you do insist on characterizing what these emailers are in real life provide some proof, or say "they calim to be X or Y". Also be prepared to have similar nasty emails sent to SAW included as well. Lastly, I didn't realize it was against the rules to contribute to only one article. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Everyone starts out contributing to just one article. Why is this important? Riven turnbull 09:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Riven, I'm not sure which email you mean, sorry.
The White Power activist is named Michael Crook. That name may be false; he's an inveterate liar. Wikipedia once had article on him, but it was deleted in May. He is best known for running a website called "Forsake the Troops". Malkin once called him a "white supremacist sicko".[6]
Yes, if you can show that this is the guy who wrote the email to Malkin, in response to the SAW affair just put that evidence into the entry. As it reads right now, there's no evidence for that claim. Riven turnbull 19:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
"Crook" posted Malkin's address, phone numbers, aerial photos of her house, and other details on one his blogs, at http://www.mcomike.com/michelle_malkin_at_it_again. He's since deleted the blog, but it's still in Google archives (minus the photos — Google only saves the text). Then he and/or his followers posted comments to zillions of blogs linking to one of those images. Most bloggers deleted those comments ASAP, regardless of their politics. IIRC, dailykos.com handled it especially well. See Talk:Michelle_Malkin/Archive1#Malkin_vs_SAW for more details.
I agree that we should not reproduce any of those hate emails. (We have links to both samples of the hate email that both SAW and Malkin got. That's appropriate. It lets interested readers see the death threats to SAW.)
It's quite OK to contribute to one article, but we do get some undesirable editors who do that. Riven's long and detailed comments on this page show that he is not that sort of editor. Cheers, CWC(talk) 11:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering what you have put me through with a small set of verifiable facts, (that the names are NOT on SAW's site) I don't think you have any room to speculate about my being "undesirable editor." Riven turnbull 19:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Cheers, CWC(talk) 05:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC) who also added the "Anti-semitic abuse of SAW" heading below.

Reply to Riven's comments of 19:46 UTC

Well now I'm very angry ... at myself. Somehow, back in April, I got the idea into my head that there was only one Press Release re the April 11 action, when there were two. There is no version of the April 11th Press Release ("A11PR" for short) on SAW's website which contains those contact details. I apologise to Riven.

I accept. I haven't reported you to anyone or anything. However, I'm still disappointed that even after all this, You still maintain -as a matter of FACT- that these numbers were "posted by SAW on public web." But nothing you've said has proven this. I am justified in removing this unsupported piece of information. Riven turnbull 09:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

But I still say that the original A11PR included the contact details. At least one hard-left blogger copied the unedited PR onto the web: http://oreaddaily.blogspot.com/2006_04_09_oreaddaily_archive.html#114486852444640068. See also http://perth.indymedia.org/?action=newswire&parentview=18037, with the annotation "[perth imc editor note: changed as per request]" where the contact details used to be; c/f the much cleaner update at http://sydney.indymedia.org/node/36508/print. Why did the websites remove the contact details? Because someone from SAW asked them to do so, in this email. What did they remove the details from? A duplicate of SAW's A11PR.

Obviously the press release sent to the media did contain the names and the numbers. Some of the media may have chosen to put the full release on their own sites. If so, "SAW" did not post them. Some of the media may have and some of the media certainly did not. Riven turnbull 09:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It could (and, I predict, will) be argued that SAW might have put a cleaned-up version of the A11PR on their website, while accidentally sending the complete version to Indymedia etc. However, we have a citeable statement that SAW put the complete A11PR on their website, from someone whose claims must be taken seriously in this article: Malkin herself. See this important new Wikipedia Policy.

OK, so this is Malkin's "claim" and it should be cited as such, not as fact. As a matter of fact she made other claims about this particular issue that should be cited. I will do that with full citation. Indymedia is still a news organization, so the most likely scenario is that SAW sent the full release to some news organizations. Take a look here: SAW said on crooksandliars.com: "She REPRINTED the numbers. The death threats have started again with a vengeance.” She’s basically blaming the victim, saying “we asked for it.” But we only sent the contact info to the PRESS (not her site) along with our press release and then we specifically asked HER to remove them, when there were death threats (we’ve published some on our site), she’s refusing.” " Source: http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/04/17/malkin-crosses-the-line-santa-cruz
As you can see it says "we only sent the contact info to the PRESS." Riven turnbull 09:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

But wait, there's another twist. I don't see that it particularly matters to our article which website she got those details from. I'll edit the article accordingly.

That leads me to a question we should have answered back in April: do we have an citeable, reliably-source claims that SAW never put the full A11PR on their site?

This is absurd. Why would someone claim they "never" posted them. You don't prove a negative. You just state what evidence you have for your claim. Just because someone else hasn't denied it doesn't make it true. Riven turnbull 09:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My responses to some of Riven's other comments:

(2) Riven: I'm supposed to take your word for it that she hasn't changed anything.

Actually, indeed you are, Riven. Read WP:AGF. Note that it is a "policy", not just a "guideline". However, we do make allowances for inexperienced Wikipedians.
More concretely, I already told you that I saved all the relevant posts from MichelleMalkin.com.
But I was wrong, and Riven was right, about the relevant press release.
Fine. There are still two seperate and verifiable instances where she published the numbers and I tried to reflect this and you erased it. Riven turnbull 09:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

(4) Riven: Yes, if you can show that this is the guy who wrote the email to Malkin, in response to the SAW affair.

Um, I'm not claiming that "Crook" wrote any email to or re Malkin. He did post Malkin's home address and other details, as Google cache will show you.
Another clarification: I wrote above that "he [Crook] and/or his followers posted comments to zillions of blogs". That's an educated guess on my part. The commenter(s) used "themole" and "killthebitch" as screen names. See this and this for some good background. Afterwards, I came to the conclusion that "Crook" probably did the spamming himself, or else got a follower to do it. My left-wing friends at parrotline wondered if "themole" could be a nut from their side of politics, but to me the nuttiness seems consistent with the far right, not the left. (Of course, none of this Original Research should go in the article.)
Interesting perspective. The main point nevertheless remains: You make a claim in the article. The claim is that "at least one White Power activist" published the personal information. I believe you. But you have no citation for it. Put in a citation, a link to where this happened (where it's presumably obvious that this guy is a "White Power" activist), or some other kind of credible evidence that can be put in the article to corroborate this sentence. That's all! If you have it put it in. If you don't, it's not acceptable to make the claim. A secondary point is that is this kind of "background" characterization of peripheral personalities necessary in this paragraph. Maybe you should just make a page for this guy and mention this speculation there. Riven turnbull 09:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And now I'm going to do a "full disclosure": I think Malkin was wrong to post the email addresses, very wrong to refuse to take them down (no matter how angry she was with SAW) and really wrong to post them again. Worse still, posting the phone numbers was blatantly wrong. I hope that having expressed this POV does not disqualify me from editing this article. Cheers, CWC(talk) 04:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you owning up to that mistake. But I'm puzzled as to why my suggestions are still not reflected in your latest edits. I will make a number of changes. Every one of them will be directly supported. I trust you to no reverse them frivolously. Riven turnbull 09:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitic abuse of SAW

Maybe I'm just missing it but I can't find any reference to "anti-semetic calls" in the article history. Can you point out when that was? Lawyer2b 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It was added back in May. I removed it a few hours later. My apologies for forgetting to sign my talk-page note about that. — An embarrassed CWC(talk) 02:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that in her video segment of Vent, titled "Return Fire" aimed at Keith Olbermann's allegations on her refusal to take the addresses off of her website, she denied that the SAW protesters ever emailed her. (Link: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/17/return-fire-olbermann/)

External Links

Having re-read WP:EL recently, I suspect that some of the anti-Malkin links should be deleted. (Remember that WP:EL is a style guide, not a WP:Policy.) See also #Links_removed above.

Here's the current list, numbered for reference:

  1. MalkinWatch, a blog devoted to insulting Malkin
  2. MichelleMalkinIsAnIdiot.com, another blog devoted to criticising Malkin
  3. A series of blog posts by professors Eric Muller and Greg Robinson critiquing In Defense of Internment
  4. Michelle Malkin: The Radical Right's Asian Pitbull, at a website for Asian Americans
  5. Know Your Right-Wing Speakers: Michelle Malkin, from a Center for American Progress website
  6. One of many claims by Malkin's more energetic detractors that she lies about the authorship of her blog and columns
  7. Is Michelle Malkin a Journalist? - left-wing journalist David Neiwert says no

My comments:

1 and 2 are blogs, full of peurile insults and "unverified original research". They have to go.
3 is from a blog, but by a notable academic (see the recently-created Eric Muller article) with substantive comment. It should stay.
4 reports Malkins biography (in more detail than we do) as well as criticising her, and is now somewhat dated. It also carries advertising. I'm undecided about it.
5 is anti-Malkin propaganda designed to destroy her reputation. It has to go.
6 represents an unsubstantiated and defamatory claim which "LiberalAvenger" has been energetically promulgating for quite some time: that Michelle Malkin is just a front for Jesse. (Don't her Vents put the lie to this?) Keeping 6 makes it easier to keep this claim, which would be a clear violation of the WP:BLP policy, out of the article. I vote to keep 6.
7 is another blog posting, but by someone who once worked with her. I vote to keep it.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 04:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with any of those links staying. I do have a problem with how many of them stay. Three or four is enough. Six is unnecessary and imbalanced, especially when only three "pro-Malkin" sites are shown. There are currently seven. Lawyer2b 20:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I am removing #s 2 and 4. --AStanhope 11:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed #1, at least for the time being. Its depicts Malkin as a uniformed Nazi (a stunningly stupid ploy), and makes damaging but unsubstantiated claims about her in almost every post. Anyone wanting to restore the link will need to make a convincing case for disregarding large slabs of WP:EL. Cheers, CWC(talk) 04:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
For the record, an anon user has removed all of the "critical" sites a couple of times. I have of course restored them. I haven't been following this discussion here that closely, but my sense of the consensus is that there should be sites both pro- and anti-, and that there should be some small, roughly equal, number of each. For what it's worth, I certainly think that is a good idea subject to WP:EL, but in any case I felt confident that the unilateral removal of all critical sites was not what the consensus here is. -- Deville (Talk) 16:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Links (again)

look http://malkinwatch.blogsome.com/2006/08/11/wikipedians-unite/ The owner of the site in question is very unhappy about not getting free publicity for his site on WP and encourages people to put it back on, regardless of any discussion or consensus. No matter what your opinion of Malkin is, anybody should be aware of such soapbox abuse of WP. Medico80 22:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate tag to put on users talk pages that spam the article with this self-serving blog link is: {{subst:spam-n|Michelle Malkin}} - It will look like this:

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in Michelle Malkin. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links as long as the content abides by our policies and guidelines. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

If it continues, progressive spam warning can be added until the user is blcoked. --Tbeatty 23:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That site (Malkinwatch) has been around for a couple of years criticizing Malkin. It has its ups and downs, but overall I think it is fair and is certainly valuable as a link here. Is it not a primary resource for criticism of Malkin? I don't understand any reasoning to remove it other than political expediency by particular editors here. I'm sorry to have to have drawn that conclusion, but I must. --AStanhope 02:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This "primary resource" is full of unsubstantiated slurs, original research, etc. Wikipedia:External Links says articles should not link to such site. So this article should not link to that site. End of story.
I agree that this site used to be much better. It seems to me that it descended into the gutter when Malkin switched from text-blogging to video-blogging. It also seems to me that the current blogger(s) are making an effort to clean up their act, but with little success so far. It is possible that one day the blog will once again meet WP standards. If this happens, then we should restore the link.
Please note also that the description of the site that User:Astanhope keeps inserting into the article contains obvious falsehoods, one of which clearly violates WP:BLP.
I have pointed out repeatedly, nay tediously, that linking to that blog is a violation of WP:BLP (which is now a policy) and WP:EL. Please note that this "reasoning" is founded purely in Wikipedia rules, not in non-WP politics. I very disappointed that User:Astanhope cannot follow this.
CWC(talk) 02:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How do any of the anti-Malkin links-almost all of which essentially consist of random blog entries-constitute reliable sources? Ruthfulbarbarity 03:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Here's the current list:
  1. A series of blog posts by professors Eric Muller and Greg Robinson critiquing In Defense of Internment
  2. Know Your Right-Wing Speakers: Michelle Malkin, from a Center for American Progress website
  3. One of many claims by some opponents that Malkin lies about the authorship of her blog and columns
  4. Is Michelle Malkin a Journalist? - a journalist and blogger says no
My comments:
(1) is from a blog, but (a) the posts are academic writing, (b) Eric Muller is notable enough that we have an article on him and (c) Malkin took Muller seriously enough to respond to this critique.
(2) is anti-Malkin propaganda designed to destroy her credibility. I think we'd conform to WP:BLP better if we replaced #2 with "Michelle Malkin: The Radical Right's Asian Pitbull, at a website for Asian Americans" which reports Malkins biography in more detail than we do as well as criticising her. On the other hand, the 'Asian Pitbull' now a couple of years old, and carries advertising.
(3) is currently our only reference to a widespread slur, never substantiated AFAIK, that Michelle M is only a front for Jesse M. (My impression is that this idea comes from the degenerate post-Marxist idea that White Western Men cause all the world's problems.)
(4) is a personal reminiscence by someone who once worked with Malkin, and we make it fairly clear to readers that he now opposes her POV.
So I'd say that while all but (2) are blog entries, they are carefully-selected blog entries. In fact, I strongly support keeping all of them.
What do other editors think? Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% on number 1 - it's essentially an academic criticism, from a notable source, which the subject of the criticism addressed herself. You could almost say it's an ideal example of a good source for criticism. I'll have a look at the other sources later Edders 11:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of keeping a link because it contains a "widespread slur, never substantiated"? And wouldn't keeping link 2 violate the WP:BLP command that "Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all"? A link isn't supposed to be a roundabout way to tell the readers something we're not allowed to put in the article. Ken Arromdee 02:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Link" #3 actually contains two links. The second link is to a blog post by Eric Muller (see link #1) in which he apologises to Malkin for an earlier blog post in which he tried (and failed completely) to prove that Michelle Malkin could not have posted a particular item at her blog. The comments at that second link also contain some good defenses of Malkin. So that "External link" both raises and (largely) disproves the authorship slur. IIRC, I edited it into the current state after someone kept adding the allegation to the main article. (The sentence about Jesse Malkin looking after the children is there for the same reason.)
Should we keep it? When I wrote the comment above, I was assuming that "anti-Malkin" editors would insist on having some mention of the slur in the article; a day later, that assumption looks silly. So I'm now slightly in favour of deleting it.
Also, User:Ken Arromdee makes a very good point about Link #2. It has to go, IMO.
Cheers, CWC(talk) 09:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image

Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy says:

  • Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious. [emphasis in original]

The original rationale for using the television image is that it depicts the subject. However a PD image has been found which also depicts the subject, so the original rationale is no longer operative. -Will Beback 00:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know any better way to depict that Malkin is an FNC contributer than to place an image showing her contributing to FNC. Does fair use policy preclude having multiple images in the article, one free and one fair use? They depict different aspects of the subject, I don't see a problem with including them both. Well, except the group photo, maybe that should be cropped to just depict Malkin, I don't know that the other guy has anything to do with this article. --Dual Freq 00:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we want to minimize Fair Use material as much as possible. If the reason to have a photo is to show what the subject looks like, then the PD photo suffices. I can't see any other purpose for the TV picture. We already make it clear oin tue text that the subject appears on TV, so the photo does not add anything. -Will Beback 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Minimize, not eliminate. The group photo is an 8k, low quality image that is not adequate to identify Malkin on its own. Sure its better to use free images, but not low quality group photos. I tried to crop it, but the image of her head is only 89x98, barely big enough to use as an avatar on a web bulletin board let alone for identification of the subject of an article. --Dual Freq 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to include the Fox Image, especially at it's inordinately large size. Wikipedia is a promotional tool for neither Malkin nor Fox. It needs to go. · XP · 01:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a promotional tool for congressman Steve King, especially because of the image's inordinately small size and low quality. The original image better represents the subject, "free" image is a group image this article is not about congressman Steve King, what does he have to do with this article? --Dual Freq 01:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It was a free image that featured the subject. Hence, it should be used. · XP · 02:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(remove indent)I haven't removed the lower quality group photo, it is being used despite the fact that this article has nothing to do with Steve King, as far as I can tell. I suspect that you are deliberately looking for images of commentators with congressmen based on your removal of only one of the fair use images on Limbaugh's article. You've left two fair use images on Limbaugh's page, so you must not mind those there. Maybe they match a point of view you want to portray to the reader. --Dual Freq 02:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to do with POV; its policy. I just haven't gotten to those yet; they're coming out as well. · XP · 05:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This isn't about the Limbaugh page, it's about the Fair Use policy. The rationale for using the TV picture was to show what the suybject looks like, and we've found a PD photo that fills the same role. Therefore there is no longer a need to use the Fair Use image and so it must be removed. -Will Beback 05:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the rationale after its initial removal. I believe that the rationale still applies. I also believe there is an ulterior motive for the placement of images with various congressmen, thus the Limbaugh reference. --Dual Freq 05:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use in Michelle Malkin

The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use as:

  1. it is a photo of a famous individual illustrating an example of the subjects participation Fox News Channel telecasts;
  2. it is of lower resolution than the original NTSC broadcast picture (copies made from it will be of very inferior quality);
  3. the photo is only being used for informational purposes.
  4. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of the article and supports the accompanying material. --Dual Freq 01:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Has been posted here, for a final policy based opinion from the community. Note that fair use never trumps our own policies, which are more restrictive than copyright law by design. · XP · 07:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The use of Image:Congressman-malkin.jpg is correct. As a totally free image it lets our project be used for the purposes it is intended, which a copyrighted image does not. The assertion of 'fair use' in this instance doesn't stand because there is an alternative free image available. The fact that there is a second person present does not change the fact that it is a free image and should continue to be used. --AlisonW 08:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


removed picture of Malkin with Congressman

This web page has nothing to do with the Congressman and I don't see why a picture of him with the subject of this page is included. It should be a picture of her alone, unless the Congressman is somehow directly involved with the topics on this page, which he is not. Image:Congressman-malkin.jpg|thumb|250px|Malkin with Congressman Steve King—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilowattradio (talk • contribs) 22:18, October 16, 2006

I agree, but the answer is not to violate WP:3RR. You can help by contributing a free image of Michelle Malkin so we can dump this low resolution group image. --Dual Freq 23:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Work visa

Where's the reference to Malkin's parents being in America on a work visa? Ken Arromdee 14:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also removed the original research that implicitly accuses Malkin of hypocrisy because her parents were in America on a work visa yet she opposes granting citizenship to people whose parents are in America on a work visa. In fact, this is a prime example of what is wrong with OR, because it summarizes Malkin's position poorly. She objected to Hamdi not only because of the visa, but because "Hamdi was raised in the Saudi kingdom. He spoke their language, not ours. He went to their schools, not ours. He embraced their culture, their religion, and their way of life. Not ours." This objection doesn't apply to Malkin, so there's no hypocrisy. Ken Arromdee 15:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary info and POV?

The wording of certain phrases such as "Like many political bloggers, she has disabled comments on her blog because of a torrent of obscene (and, in her case, racist) comments.[4]" are uncessary and somewhat misleading if not biased towards Malkin. As anyone who had ventured onto political blogs would know, there are all types of hostile comments, racist, sexist, even criminal existing on most political sites across the political spectrum. Yet the so called "trolls" are few and between and are usually dealt by the active user community. IMO most political bloggers allow and even encourage user participation. In fact, the only prominent political blog I can think of which does not allow comments is Instapundit's blog.

My next objection to this article would be the title of the section which includes Malkin critiques. The term "anti-malkin" is antigonistic. The fact that Eric Muller criticizes Malkin's thesis in her book hardly makes him "anti-malkin". Why not term the section "Critiques"? Wikipedia should not be a tool for a controversial figure and her fans to defend her ideals while painting those who criticize her as racists or trolls.

141.154.82.59 19:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Malkin's religion?

I have noticed that whenever Michelle Malkin discusses religion on her blog, she sometimes posts large excerpts from Pope Benedict or other Catholics. I never really gave much thought to her religion because usually those posts dealt with current events like the Pope's remarks about Islam, or for instance Chief Justice Robert's Catholicism and his position on abortion. However, her recent Christmas blog posting, with a large excerpt from a homily Benedict gave, made me wonder what her religion is (and whether she's Catholic). I came here for her bio and noticed it doesn't mention her religion. I know it might not be as relevant as her other political views, but I wondered if anyone knew her religion and if it should be added to her biography. Thanks. Bobslobber 21:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

One would think, almost assume, that being of Filipino ancestry would point to Catholic religion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.225 (talk • contribs)
Her husband has a Jewish last name and I believe I heard somewhere that he is indeed Jewish; however most Filipino-Americans are indeed Catholic - it's likely that she is some mildly religious combination of Catholic and Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.240.196 (talk • contribs)
I believe she has mentioned on her blog or in one of her columns that she and her family attend a Catholic church and that she takes her faith very seriously, but a quick search didn't find any obvious links. Does anyone have a good citation? Cheers, CWC(talk) 06:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
A google search of michellemalkin.com and her columns at townhall.com doesn't reveal any reference to Catholic affiliation - at least not for me. - RJASE1 07:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Jamil Hussein

I think a section on Jamil Hussein would be in order. Tomhormby 23:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A General Iraq section would be in order, since it has escalated into a rather large part of her current life – I believe she is currently embedded in Iraq with the stated goal to look for him. Thanatosimii 01:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't say much about her activities in Iraq, except that her web site has stories and some pics about it, but here are my bits and pieces about Jamil Hussein. I don't want to get into a huge thrash about it, I admit I heard about it from a liberal site and Editor & Publisher's story, but it seems worth noting that she criticizes the work of the Associated Press and basically accuses them of making stories up. Anyway, here are some notes, in outline and paragraph form, both probably incomplete and with only one news article (ironically, the AP's recap) cited. Maybe someone else would like to take this and shape it into something more Wikipedian?

1. AP Thxg weekend dispatch reported a Shiite militia attack on six men “dousing w/gasoline”. 2. US mil and Iraqi Interior ministry angered, said Hussein did not exist and that AP had fabricated a negative story to exaggerate the conflict in Iraq. 3. Iraqi government denied the existence of Hussein. 4. Conservative bloggers picked up the reports of the accusations against AP and spread the story. 5. Malkin wrote several blog columns accusing AP of a pattern of faking negative stories, and asserted she might go to Iraq to establish that there was no Jamil Hussein. 6. Subsequent news reports established that the Iraqi interior ministry does acknowledge Hussein’s existence and he has now been arrested for having contacts w/media. [7] 7. Malkin is reportedly in Iraq or en route, and plans to report on her search for Hussein.

In late November 2006 Malkin involved herself in the conservative blogosphere's outcry and accusations of fraud over an Associated Press story that cited as one named source one Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, an Iraqi police captain, who claimed to have witnessed Shiite militiamen grabbing six Sunni men, dousing them with gasoline, and burning them alive, with Iraqi police standing by doing nothing. The US military was apparently angered by the story and demanded AP retract it, and the Iraqi interior ministry (in the person of Brigadier Abdul-Karim Kharaf) suggested AP had made up Hussein to legitimize a phony story. When the Iraqi government refused to acknowledge the existence of Hussein, American right-wing bloggers took up the story, amplifying the claim that AP had faked the story and invented Hussein’s character to give it credibility. When the Iraqi interior ministry (Khalaf) belatedly did acknowledge Hussein--and when subsequent news reports revealed that Hussein had been arrested for violating the terms of his employment which forbade him to have contacts with the press--the conservative bloggers were forced to backtrack on their claims of AP's engaging in a conspiracy to deceive readers. Malkin, however, did not apologize for accusations she made in several blog columns on the affair, continuing to claim that she has legitimate questions for AP.

Those whose views are opposed to Malkin’s feel that the real story of “Jamilgate” is that it was an attempt by the US military and the Iraqi interior ministry (both of whom would suffer loss of trust if stories such as the one at issue in the Hussein controversy were widely believed to represent an accurate picture of life in Iraq) to intimidate witnesses and muzzle the independent press. The Interior ministry had demanded that either Hussein appear in a lineup with AP being called to identify him, or the story must be retracted.

AP’s recap of events as of Jan 4, '07: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_jamil_hussein_1

Anyone else want to chip in on this? Rousse 18:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you most definitly did get that from a liberal site ;) It seems that no such person as Captain Jamil Hussein exists in Baghdad, nor did he ever, apparently. There is a person under a similar name who the AP is claiming is the same person, however the blogs consider this vindication of their own points instead of vindication of the AP, since they claim the AP basically dared them to try to find him, knowing that he could not be found under that name. At least this is what they claim. However, I fear that the sources necesarry to write anything about the Jamil Hussein controversy at all are far from reliable. Thanatosimii 19:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, offhand:

  • The quoted section includes weasel words. Saying that conservative bloggers had to backtrack doesn't name or quote any of the bloggers; readers can't figure out for themselves if the bloggers have been referenced accurately, or if they are important bloggers. Saying that "those whose views are opposed to Malkin’s feel that the real story is..." without naming such opponents reads very much like an attempt by the writer of the article to give his own idea of what the "real story" is, and is using "those whose views are opposed to Malkin's" as an excuse.
  • That section uses only the AP as a source. But the AP is part of the controversy; using only the AP as a source biases it.
  • It explains in detail what views Malkin's opponents hold, but Malkin's own current views are vaguely described as "continuing to claim that she has legitimate questions for AP."

Ken Arromdee 23:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I freely admitted that my version was sketchy. You folks who feel it's biased, step right up and contribute something. Seems to me that the Center for American Progress web site had a piece on the furor - they name the names of the conservative bloggers who promulgated the anti-AP angle, but I'm not familiar with them, beyond Malkin. Maybe you folks know some more about their views?Rousse 01:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not complaining that it doesn't name conservative bloggers who are anti-AP, I'm complaining that it doesn't name conservative bloggers who backtracked.
And if by "contribute" you mean that other people should provide the sources instead of complaining about their absence, that's wrong. It's your job to provide the sources for material that you add; if you don't, other people can contribute by deleting the unsourced claims. Ken Arromdee 07:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Guess we should leave it here, then. What you say is true, but at this point I know I've spent more time on Jamilgate than I can justify. Or I'm not much of a journalist, or whatever; true enough. But perhaps this really is a nonstory that matters to relatively few on WP. I'll leave it to others to decide. Rousse 17:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Malkin's trip to Iraq will need to be covered in the article. "Jamilgate" should get a mention at least. (It could turn into a big scandal needing coverage in several Wikipedia articles.) My inclination is to wait for things to settle down before adding information to Wikipedia; whether that's wisdom or laziness I'm not sure. Cheers, CWC(talk) 04:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Malkin's latest take on the Jamil Hussein affair. In case anyone thinks it's relevant... http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006728.htm Fact-checking the AP and Jamil Hussein, by Michelle Malkin · January 21, 2007 09:26 AM Rousse 05:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)